Durability and Parsimony: Railway Station Architecture in Ontario, 1853-1914 c S £<.:0NO CLASS '!Y A Y :; 1 r) t·: !i .... (.A"T I flr'l !0-: ... 1 ~ d.fl ~ i tv "1\r ; 11 r l• / ~ - ) ·~ ' ELEVAT I ON Figure 1. Grand Trunk Railway Type C Second Class S E.CTION wayside station, ca. 1853. (Ontario Archives, Shanly Papers, MU 2701, Toronto and Guelph drawings); inset Sl Marys Junction station. (Regional Collection, by Anne M. de Fort-Menares University of Western Ontario) 21:1 SSAC BULLETIN SEAC 25 orporate railway history in Ontario can be charted as a tree, from many roots up Cthrough three main branches. Dozens of short local lines were initially chartered, construction began on some, and a few even operated, only to be bought out by a larger line whose directors had ambitions to develop a system. Strategies for connect­ ing key shipping nodes drove most company development. By 1882, the Grand Trunk Railway (GTR) had bought up most of the smaller lines and competing systems in Ontario, leaving the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) and the Canada Southern as its chief com­ petitors. The urge to build to the Pacific resulted in three trans-national lines operat­ ing by the First World War: the CPR, the Grand Trunk Pacific (GTP), and the Canadian Northern (CNoR). Overextension and the huge costs of building and operating railways through the Rockies caused the bankruptcy of the CNoR in 1918, followed by the GTP in 1920 and the Grand Trunk, its parent, in 1923. From the crisis was created Canadian 1 Rowland Macdonald Stephenson, Railways: An Intro­ National Railways. ductolJ' Sketch, with Suggestions in Reference to For investors, engineers, and the directors of 19th century railway companies Their Extension to British Colonies (London: John Weale, Architectural Librruy, 1850), 8, 78 . in Ontario, the railway station was the least important element of their whole enterprise. 2 Local surveyors such as Sandford Fleming, W alt!)r Their most intense emotions and intellectual efforts were devoted to stock issues and and Frank Shanly, and Thomas Keefer were involved debentures, to obtaining government assistance, to the routing of lines and the ballast­ as section engineers or consultants. The Toronto to ing of track, and to attracting the sources of freight that would generate revenue. Sarnia line was credibly built by C.S. Gzowski and Everyone knew that a railway didn't make money carrying passengers. Moreover, rail­ Co. Gzowski was chief engineer on the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railway, whose president, A.T. Galt, way stations were peripheral paraphernalia required to execute other functions of also controlled the Montreal & Kingston and railroading-though, in addition to the obvious purposes of selling tickets, sheltering Toronto & Guelph railways, all of which were amal­ passengers, controlling trains, and handling baggage and freight, stations eventually gamated into the Grand Trunk in 1853. Gzowski was awarded the contract as something of a consolation came to fill a role of disseminating visual propaganda and advertising. prize. Work on the Gzowski section was supervised Railway stations emerged in Britain with the development of steam passenger by the Shanly brothers, as divisional chief and resi­ trains in the 1830s, and evolved as an architectural type in the 1840s (the first passen­ dent engineers. Dianne Newell and Ralph Greenhill, ger stations in Ontario were built in 1853). British railway influence was so pervasive Survivals: Aspects of Industrial Archaeology in Ontario (Erin, Ont.: Boston Mills Press, 1989), 47. in Canada, the United States, and Europe that the sources for railway architecture in the 19th century were international and fluid; engineers and architects drew upon 3 Thompson, born in Suffolk, is thought to have been a tailor in London before designing the Midland Hotel architectural fashion, railway precedents, local practice, and company policy-in approxi­ at Derby in 1841. In 1845 he produced a series of mately that order-when developing a station design. The earliest designs were tentative stations for the Eastern Counties Railway on the in every country, but by 1850 analysts were confidently contrasting the "solidity and Cambridge line. He went over to the Chester & Holy­ head line, where he produced a number of fairly large strength, durability and grandeur" of English works with the "rigid and parsimonious stations in 1848 (Chester, Flint, Holywell junction, economy" of the American version, or, more generously, with the "simple and eco­ Mostyn, Rhyl. Bangor, Bodorgan, Llong, Valley in nomical" American station.1 North Wales). More buildings by Thompson are Station construction in Ontario has always followed two streams, one repre­ known from the later 1850s: Melton, Darsham, and Oulton Broad South were all built in 1859 on the senting a consciously designed edifice, the other the equivalent of a utilitarian shack. East Suffolk line of the Great Eastern Railway. He The designed stream began with the very accomplished first-generation stations of the continued to work for the GER through the 1860s. Grand Trunk (figure 1, page 25), built between 1853 and 1863. These would not be See Gordon A. Buck, A Pictorial Survey of Railway Stations (Sparkford, Near Yeovil: Oxford Publish­ matched consistently in quality until the fine Beaux-Arts union stations of the 20th ing Co., 1992), 52-59. The primruy source linking century. The Grand Trunk was built in the early 1850s to provide a main trunk line Thompson to the Grand Trunk is '1mprovements at throughout the entire length of the Province of Canada, reaching from Sarnia on Lake Island Pond," Daily Transcript (Montreal), 25 Sep­ Huron to Halifax on the Atlantic Ocean. Ultimately, the line was extended to the Pacific, tember 1852, 2: "GTR engine house and repair shop .. Plans by Mr. Thompson, of Montreal, the to compete with the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Grand Trunk was entirely a British Company's architect, who made the plans for the imperial railway, backed by British investors, run by a British board from London, funded India Street station." Thompson disappeared from and largely built by British companies, and engineered and designed by British talent.2 notice in England in the 1850s; his English biogra­ pher, Oliver F. Carter, believes he was in Montreal The Grand Trunk stations are thought to have been designed by one of Britain's employed as architect for the GTR (Carter's material most original and best known architects specializing in railway architecture, Francis is unpublished). Robert G. Hill, Toronto, and personal Thompson.3 Thompson (1808-1895) worked as an architect in Montreal from 1830 to correspondence with O.F. Carter, 1991. 1838, then returned to England just in time for the railway boom. He was back in 4 Newell and Greenhill, 52 ; Buck, 59. Montreal working for the GTR from 1853 to 1859, only to resume work in England on 4 5 Iron train shed at Thompson's Derby station, de­ the East Suffolk line of the Great Eastern Railway in 1859. Thompson became a leader in signed by Stephenson for the Midland, 1839-41, the Italianate railway style in England, designing the acclaimed Chester station as and at Chester, designed by C.H. Wild with well as those at Cambridge and Bel per. He worked at many other locations for the Stephenson as company engineer. G. Biddle and O.S. Nock, The Railway Heritage of Brimin (London: North Midlands, the Eastern Counties, and the Chester and Holyhead railways. For M. joseph, 1983), 78 , 100. the Midlands and Chester railways he collaborated with Robert Stephenson,5 whose 6 A.W. Currie, The Grand Trunk Railway of Canada resident engineer, Alexander Ross, was taken on in Canada by the British railway con­ (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1957), 24. tractors Peto, Brassey, Jackson, and Betts.6 The Peto firm, which held railway contracts in Stephenson was appointed engineer-in-chief on 15 countries, assisted in raising capital through British bankers Barings and Glyn and the Victoria Bridge project in Montreal, and visited 7 the site in 1853. Newell and Greenhill, 48. built the line from Montreal to Toronto. It should be noted that Thompson's authorship of the Grand Trunk station 7 jeffrey Richards and John M. MacKenzie, The Rail­ way Station: A Social HistOlJ' (Oxford: Oxford Uni­ design is not certain; it seems peculiar that the company could have so accomplished versity Press, 1988), 187. and acclaimed an architect as Thompson without reporting this fact in Canada. The 26 SSAC BULLETIN SEAC 21 :1 Figure 2. Station at Pantyffynnon for the Great Western Railway; I.K. Brunei, architect, 1850. (Gordon S. Buck, A Pictorisl Survsy of Rsilwsy Ststions(Sparkford, Near Yeovil: Oxford Publishing Co., 199211 Italianate style he favoured seems to have been freely adapted wherever railways were built. In the United States, Richard Upjohn developed designs for Massachu­ setts stations in 1852-53 which, influenced by Thompson, exhibit the massing, rhythms, and detailing found in contemporary British station architecture.8 Four of Thompson's stations were published in 1842 by J.C. Loudon, who demonstrated how eas­ ily they could be adapted to villas.9 The influence of British engineer I.K. Brunei should also be noted: his Mortimer station of 1848 and Pantyffynnon station of 1850 both have the broad sheltering eaves, simple roofs, compact plans, prominent chimneys, and Italianate detailing that characterized the stone Grand Trunk stations of the 1850s (figure 2). 10 The majority of Grand Trunk stations opened in 1856. Of the 22 built on the Montreal to Toronto line, ten survive in Ontario.11 While most North American lines built as cheaply and expediently as possible, expecting to upgrade if and when the line began to pay returns, the GTR built on the English model, with heavy investment in permanent works.